Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:56:22 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next 5/9] page_pool: don't use driver-set flags field directly | From | Alexander Lobakin <> |
| |
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:29:20 -0700
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:36:33 +0200 Alexander Lobakin wrote: >>>> You would need a separate patch to convert all the page_pool_create() >>>> users then either way. >>>> And it doesn't look really natural to me to pass both driver-set params >>>> and driver-set flags as separate function arguments. Someone may then >>>> think "why aren't flags just put in the params itself". The fact that >>>> Page Pool copies the whole params in the page_pool struct after >>>> allocating it is internals, page_pool_create() prototype however isn't. >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> It just seems odd to me that dma_map and page_frag is duplicated as we >>> seems to have the same info in the page_pool->p.flags. >> >> It's just because we copy the whole &page_pool_params passed by the >> driver. It doesn't look good to me to define a new structure and copy >> the values field-by-field just to avoid duplicating 3 bits :s > > FWIW I'm tempted to do something like the patch below (an obvious move, > I suspect). I want to add another pointer (netdev) to the params and
Just take napi->dev as I do in libie :)
> I don't want it to eat up bytes in the first cache line. > The patch is incomplete, we need to stash a one-bit indication in > the first cache line to know init_callback is not present without > having to look at @slow. I'll defer doing that cleanly until your > patches land.
I would propose to include it in the series, but it has grown a bunch already and it's better to do that later separately :s
> With this in place we can move flags outside of @fast, and interpret
Oh, really nice. We could avoid copying them at all.
> it manually while copying all the other members in one go.
[...]
Thanks, Olek
| |